# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280915 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1075 on: 30/04/2013 01:45:10 »
A very weird though from locality would be that we don't need a length contraction. We still need it from a same common universe though, just as Special Relativity/Aether and the MMX experiment shows us, there existing several other examples too, all joined by relativity and Lorentz transformations. And the same must then be true for time dilations,

If you define all uniform motion as being still, locally measured, you get a locally unmoving definition, although 'moving' relative other frames of references. And if all frames locally is equal, defined as I do? Then, where is the contraction? Scale? Would that matter for the definition of a frame of reference?
=

Of course it must :) because the only way I can get to this 'local equivalence' is from using scales, defining a frame of reference to Planck scale.  But I can use it for a macroscopic definition too, assuming the particles defining some matter, to be approximately 'at rest' with each other.

« Last Edit: 30/04/2013 01:52:34 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1076 on: 30/04/2013 02:05:14 »
Is that universe any weirder than the one in where you are forced to accept length contractions, as being real, as well as time dilations, also being real? I don't think so myself, and it explains the arrow. I do not need to exchange it into a 'space' meeting a non rotating black hole. I can let it be what it is, 'c'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1077 on: 30/04/2013 02:09:40 »
What is questions though are our 'dimensions' creating that 'common same universe' we all are supposed to exist in. And questioning those you will find that definitions of us all being 'fitted' into it can't be correct either. But constants exist, some of them defined from the mosaic we find this universe to express, expressed as 'one universe', other able to be defined from a very local point of view, as I see it.
=

This one is interesting to me.
http://phys.org/news157203574.html
« Last Edit: 30/04/2013 02:14:52 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1078 on: 30/04/2013 02:21:00 »
In my definition we all see something different, and, locally true. And I refer it the way we have set up repeatable experiments as our stepping stone from where we define this universe, also pointing out that the only way you can measure that experiment, is locally, validating your neighbors (also) locally made experiment. There are two parts here to consider. One is my definition of all local experiments being equal, the other is all local arrows, as well as 'distances' being equal.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1079 on: 30/04/2013 02:24:13 »
And we do it in uniform motion, if we want it to be the exact same under a acceleration we need to accelerate equally to find a experiment to fit, being 'at rest' with each other in our accelerations.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1080 on: 30/04/2013 02:33:15 »
You could see it one way more though. Because those constants we find is also locally defined, meaning that they are as real for me as they are for you. That one is sort of headache creating :) although perfectly consistent, if we assume that my thought up 'multi verses' need a same set of constants, to be experienced as one common universe :)

That one do make sense, but what would it make constants?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1081 on: 07/05/2013 12:46:53 »
You would have two sets of constants, wouldn't you?
One set relating to locality, the other relating to frames of reference.
And 'c' would then be what join them, as it exist as your local speed and clock as well as the information and force carriers between frames of reference, or 'localities' if you like.
=

And then we have your local 'ruler', a result from frames of reference if this would be correct. That as you need restmass to define that ruler, and the resmass would then be a result from frames of reference joining it, if defined from a Planck scale.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2013 12:50:03 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1082 on: 10/05/2013 12:01:51 »
When it comes to 'c' I think of it from scaling, and what I refer to as a symmetry. The symmetry is the one between 'dimensions', of which 'c' is one. It also seem to relate to matter, as it is there we find the symmetry best described, although different 'bosons' can be defined to different speeds, relative a observer and some reference frame.

So scaling it down to 'locality' becomes something still being 'c' but, thought of as a clock having a oscillation, stopping it, locally defined, using Planck scale for defining it to that minimum limit of making sense physically.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2013 12:03:22 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1083 on: 10/05/2013 12:29:13 »
I think you need to see it my way to make any sense of the way I see it. Scaling something down, assuming dimensions to exist, what you are left with at Plank scale is something not in motion. One Plank length 'big' in where nothing, locally defined as in experimentally measured from that point should be able to move. But, will it still be observed to 'move', as defined from your frame of reference, observing it? I use locality defining it, not frames of reference.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1084 on: 10/05/2013 12:32:31 »
And that one becomes really weird, doesn't it? If now a frame of reference could be defined to a Planck scale, and if the definition locally describes it as a place without 'motion', and without the 'clock' I assume 'c' to be. How will I then be able to introduce a arrow to other 'frames of reference'?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1085 on: 10/05/2013 12:45:13 »
And that should then, hopefully, be scales, if I want to make any sense of it. At least as I suspect now. With scales you then will introduce 'frames of reference', and our 'common universe' defined by your local arrow.

And that makes frames of reference very strange. Although they already are, no matter how you think of it. The other way could be to assume 'c' to tick, even at that scale, but no longer as something 'moving', directly connected to how I think of light as non-propagating. Instead allow it to flicker at 'c'. You might be able to join those two, into something 'not flickering', by assuming that what defines lights behavior, is relations. And a isolated Planck scale 'point' could then possibly be defined to first demand relations, to be able to present us that 'flicker' (locally described). From my view that should be necessary, to make it simple, as any other description demands 'a arrow' allowing it to flicker.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2013 12:49:30 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1086 on: 10/05/2013 12:51:18 »
And to take that a step further. From a local point of view that light won't exist. Think it through and you should see why.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1087 on: 10/05/2013 12:59:23 »
So this universe, as I see it, exist through 'frames of reference'. And those exist through a local constant 'c', becoming a 'clock' (and a speed) as well as a definition of a ruler, created through 'dimensions', or as I prefer it, relations or 'paths'. A relation does not need to be existent at both end-points to exist, not if paths define it. And that one has definitely to do with what you think makes a universe. To my understanding it is us defining it, from (local) experiments, and then using (global) theoretical frameworks building on them. But relativity used 'c'.
=

'Paths' as not needing end-points, is just a description of you looking for some linear connection, as causality or action and reaction, without finding it experimentally definable, although still needed theoretically. You can see that several ways, as it being loops and stings, or just something to us unmeasurable. To that you also should be able to join fractal behaviors, describing some sort of 'gestalt' that might define it.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2013 13:09:36 by yor_on »

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1088 on: 10/05/2013 17:38:07 »
'Paths' as not needing end-points, is just a description of you looking for some linear connection, as causality or action and reaction, without finding it experimentally definable, although still needed theoretically.
This is the reason I suggest that a path forward, a path to the left, and a path upward are different degrees of freedom than the paths backward, to the right, or downward. This point has been very difficult for me to get across. When one travels forward, they are moving thru a completely different universe than one traveled backwards. And also, a path taken to the left or downward is not the same degree of freedom as one taken to the right or upward. The proof for this is one can not travel in both the forward and backward paths in the same quantum of time. They are therefore different degrees of freedom because time must always be considered when speaking about movement.
Quote from: yor_om
To that you also should be able to join fractal behaviors, describing some sort of 'gestalt' that might define it.
And I agree, but the generation of the fractal pattern will advance in 6 degrees of freedom according to my interpretation of space. Because each segment of fractal regeneration will advance relative to the 3 dimensions of spatial reality but because of time:

The 4th dimension dictates that no individual fractal can both advance to the left and to the right at the same instant of time. Therefore, we must consider that there are not just 3 degrees of freedom, there must be 6.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2013 17:40:04 by Ethos_ »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1089 on: 10/05/2013 20:54:01 »
Don't take me too serious here Ethos :)
I'm starting to sound pompous ::))

I'm playing with concepts, more or less, to see if I find them sound 'sensible'. I might take them seriously at some time, but not yet, to me it's still a game of logic, although I do take some pieces of it seriously. Degrees of freedom are as you say directions, and we define three spatial, together with one arrow of time, to create this universe. Paths on the other hand can mean just about anything to me, as long as I theoretically find it to make some logic, and that mean a relation. I don't like the idea of dimensions that much :) So I try to ignore them, for now at least.  And no, I' not sure how I will find a new degree of freedom by traveling backwards instead of forward?

There are three spatial degrees of freedom, and they are always defined relative the 'observer', meaning that this observer may stand on his head 'up' in space, as far as I define it, from some inertial point. But we will both agree on those three 'dimensions' existing, even though his forward, or up, might become what I define as 'back and down'. And the arrow has only one direction, into the future as I think, no matter how you define a motion. That must be from my definitions, as I bind a arrow to 'c'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1090 on: 10/05/2013 21:07:32 »
To me the arrow won't go backward. I'm using scales for it, and my expectation is that under Planck scale you shouldn't find a arrow any more. Instead I see it as probabilities, with those probabilities we see as outcomes being defined by what type of constants we have, and this universe's 'relations'. You might say that passing Planck scale you meet a universe of 'magic', but not really. I think of it as a place without causality, and arrow, instead using quantum logic. And our universe should then, in my eyes, become a symmetry break from that, defining four degrees of freedom for us to measure and experiment in.
=

One could think of it as if there was no arrow, without this symmetry break. Neither should there be defined 'dimensions'. It's us defining dimensions as well as a clock. And distance is a description we use, as well as our clock. We define everything we imagine from where we are, and as we can't really do a 'local experiment', per my definitions, assuming it to be Planck scale, then we must experiment over 'frames of reference'. We have one more definition of joining a same frame though, being 'at rest' with what you measure (macroscopically). To define the arrow to go backwards is also to assume that it exist, free. But I see the arrow as a part of the dimensions we define, becoming a limit, not as something I can free from the rest of the limitations we meet macroscopically. And there should be no way you can pass 'c' (as a speed) as I suspect, although you might be able to tweak the 'dimensions' we have, possibly?
« Last Edit: 10/05/2013 21:43:27 by yor_on »

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1091 on: 10/05/2013 23:40:31 »

And no, I' not sure how I will find a new degree of freedom by traveling backwards instead of forward?

There are three spatial degrees of freedom, and they are always defined relative the 'observer',

About taking things too seriously, I suppose this issue I'm having trouble with isn't that important. Nevertheless, there seems to be something wrong with calling a choice between two distinct alternatives as a single degree of freedom. You're either free to go forward or backward but you can't do both at the same time.

But then again, maybe I just answered my own question. I suppose when we speak of a degree of freedom, we are talking about a choice between two alternatives. But if I then concede to these 3 degrees of spatial freedom, I must insist that there are still 6 completely different paths one could choose from the point of origin. And even though, there certainly exist an infinite number of paths possible, there can be only 6 when referring strictly to the spatial dimensions you and I recognize as length, width, and depth. Because when we move, we must always start from a point of origin. Along the dimension of length, we can choose a path into a universe before us or the one behind us. And the universe before us is not the same one as the one behind us.

So more correctly I suppose, one could say that we have two paths of choice when dealing with length. And likewise, two for width and depth also.

Three degrees of spatial freedom with six different paths to choose from. Like the arrow of time, each of these six paths is different and distinct one from the other. Many scientists also suggest that time has two different and distinct paths, one arrow into the future, and one into the past.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 01:06:46 by Ethos_ »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1092 on: 11/05/2013 00:44:00 »
Defining it as degrees of freedom instead of dimensions in this universe, you can pick your choice of direction from a spherical definition, at most, I think? When I think of it here I'm using it in the same manner as we use dimensions, assuming you measure some piece of matter. You get a length a height and a width, as well as the time it took measuring. Although I use degrees of freedom instead of 'dimensions' accentuating that this is what it really is about, not that piece of matter really, but three defined ways to describe our universe together with time, defining a SpaceTime position. And as you think, I too think there might be more degrees of freedom, although myself I consider them to be not measurable.

As for what direction a fractal should be described as I'm unsure. Myself I think of it as self like, and able to scale.

I've been thinking about relativistic mass. You send something away close to light speed, it gets a relativistic mass (energy). As measured from the front, you trying to stop it apply one force, doing the same at a right angle you aply another 'force'. Although it is arguably correct that if you tried to stop it at a angle you should need to use the same force as if trying to stop it from the front, probably more, as you would work with friction. I don't like that example because there is no way you can deflect from the front, you should need to use angles to deflect, no matter if you're in front of it, or at its side, as it seems to me? Isn't that one a flawed proposition?

Or is it correct?

It doesn't matter, or maybe it does :) but if a uniform motion doesn't store a 'energy', then where is the 'energy' created through a uniform 'speed' stored? In the vacuum?

How?

I don't see how it can be the vacuum, it must be a result from a symmetry, or 'system' if you like. The problem is that I see no way to define a added energy to object uniformly moving relative some other uniformly moving object. Locally it should be unmeasurable, although definable relative the CBR for example. But that is not a vacuum.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1093 on: 11/05/2013 01:04:22 »
Gravity will be the same, no matter Earths uniform speed, relative some other frame of reference. Not so in a acceleration though, uniform constant accelerations will be equivalent to a added gravity according to the equivalence principle. In a acceleration we have a definition of gravity increasing locally, which might be seen as if the vacuum (energy) acted on Earths acceleration. And as I assume this to continue to be a local definition, no matter how one define a frame of reference scale-wise? Either the vacuum, or strictly locally. But then we have those uniform speeds?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1094 on: 11/05/2013 01:21:32 »
They will 'shrink' a distance in front of you, doesn't matter if it is a acceleration or a uniform motion. So they influence a vacuum, locally defined. But if you use a experiment, aka Casimir force, to measure a different 'vacuum energy', due to your uniform motion (speed), I'm prepared to bet that it won't make a difference, no matter how many times you accelerate between those 'uniform motion' measurements. So how do one prove how, or if, a vacuum store energy?

Because isn't that what science is about, proving by experiments? We know that different uniform speeds, as in acceleration chambers, do express different energies in a collision. But I'm afraid I can't see it as a proof of a vacuum energy? To me that is more of a proof of collisions, and different uniform speeds, existing. Muon's are a very nice indirect example of a universe 'shrinking' though, as I see no simpler definition of those experiments.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1095 on: 11/05/2013 01:24:35 »

As for what direction a fractal should be described as I'm unsure. Myself I think of it as self like, and able to scale.

Yes, maybe similar to the way a crystal grows? Or as someone has also suggested, like a snowflake growing from a nuclear seed. I tend to see a sphere scaling up from a Planck length where the center remains at the center of the final object until a budding off point is reached where new spheres develop similar to cell creation in living organisms. This is of course way to simple an explanation but, on the other hand, I keep remembering what Einstein said about simplicity being the ideal remedy.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1096 on: 11/05/2013 01:50:55 »
Well, somehow it seems to impose a complexity from simple principles and that is what I like too Ethos. As for it having a defined center, I'm not as sure though? Think of it as a picture, some fractals you can zoom in, about anywhere you like, and still find it to be 'self like', all of it becoming a sort of 'extended center'. But there exist different types of course.

Anyway :) if all uniform motions are equivalent, locally measured. And we still define it such as a (particle chamber) collisions being proof of different uniform speeds? Either the vacuum, but I don't think that one is experimentally provable, although it should be? Because you only have two definitions, something uniformly 'moving' relative? A vacuum? If I define it that way, I also should be able to define a single object as 'moving' in a otherwise empty, infinite space.

To get that 'speed' you need at least two objects, and it doesn't matter which one you define to move, as it seems to me? It's a symmetry to me, in where it is the 'system' that defines the collision. And I think I can add it up, to as many objects I like, and still define it this way. I don't need a vacuum for it, but I need frames of reference. And I need some other definition of a motion, to make it make sense. Because I think we're down to two definitions here, accelerations as something locally measurable, uniform motions as equivalently 'unmoving', not locally measurable.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1097 on: 11/05/2013 02:19:03 »
If I define it that way, I also should be able to define a single object as 'moving' in a otherwise empty, infinite space.
The only way to measure a single object moving in empty infinite space would be to accelerate it. I don't think we could notice any movement without some acceleration.
Quote from: yor_on
Because I think we're down to two definitions here, accelerations as something locally measurable, uniform motions as equivalently 'unmoving', not locally measurable.
True, but something just crossed my mind that I've never considered before.

How do we define an object moving away from a local frame using only a visual index? We naturally see it shrink in size. This may sound like a silly question but, how can we be sure that it hasn't really shrunk?  Stupid question I know. That would turn things completely upside down wouldn't it?
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 02:21:15 by Ethos_ »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1098 on: 11/05/2013 02:28:39 »
Heh, you introduce frames of reference there Ethos, and a system consisting of two frames of reference macroscopically, as two planets leaving each other. As soon as you have two objects you have frames of reference, and that da*ned space :) But locally, you being at rest with one of the planets, you shouldn't find anything changing. But sure, you could instead of a motion define it as shrinking, if not using a measurement, as some light signal or otherwise defining a distance. And yeah, something treating it as 'unmoving' locally still giving us the effects we associate to motion would be real interesting :)
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 02:30:56 by yor_on »

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1099 on: 11/05/2013 02:37:00 »
You mentioned the Muon before, the heavier electron particle being proof for a shrinking. I haven't heard about this before but several years ago, I considered how we would prove the universe was expanding without also considering that matter might be shrinking as also an explanation. Just a thought...........another silly idea of mine. My mind wanders a lot....................
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 02:38:35 by Ethos_ »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1099 on: 11/05/2013 02:37:00 »